One of the organizers of the recent World Nano Economic Congress in Washington, D.C., tells me it's a "pity" there was a rumor circulating that former Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres had canceled his appearance.
"I don't know how such a rumor got started and what would motivate anyone to say it since there was never any doubts about his participation," said Conference Director Dexter Johnson.
He said Peres met one-on-one with a number of speakers, including: Goran Lindahl, a board member of Sony, DuPont and Ericsson as well as special adviser to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan; David Tennenhouse of Intel; and Richard Smalley of Rice University.
Discuss
Saturday, September 13, 2003
Peres shows up, schmoozes
Give me the business
I'm in the process of planning a special issue of Small Times magazine that focuses purely on business. Small Tech Business 101 will be a kind of "so you want to run a nano business" how-to guide. I want to avoid the usual business-guide cliches and useless boxes filled with obvious tips. I'd like to give useful nanotech, MEMS and microsystems business information tailored toward entrepreneurs, venture capitalists, consultants, students, average folks who are interested and, yes, I guess even lawyers.
You don't need to be a businessperson, yourself, to have thoughts on this, but I'd like to know what the die-hard nanotech fanatics who read this blog would like to see in a special-issue magazine like this. What would make a nanotech business guide useful for you? Click on the discussion link below, and you can tell me where to go ... with the guide, that is.
Discuss
Friday, September 12, 2003
Self-Assembled News
Nanotubes bid for star billing on big screens
Chinese nano plot for world domination?
Nano needles, and no damage done
Chemists unite to make a better living
RPI is NSEC with NSF dough-re-mi
Thai a nano ribbon
Thursday, September 11, 2003
Collecting nano impressions
The Center for Science, Policy & Outcomes at Columbia University has a bare-bones online nanotechnology database. Why is this nanotech Web site different from all others? Well, it isn't. Yet. But if the group follows through on its promise, it could be one of the few information sources devoted specifically to "society’s perceptions of nanotech."
Other nanotech sites, the group argues, "does not concern itself with what the outside world thinks. An outside-looking-in perspective is … not currently available anywhere."
You know, I was beginning to think that I was the only one screaming and ranting and raving that perception is just as important as reality when it comes to emotional public policy issues that deal with the unknown. I'm glad to read that others are just as crazy as I am.
'Science for peace'
Shimon Peres, speaking at a nanotech conference in Washington: "In the Middle East, land for peace is wrong. It should be science for peace."
For more background on why the former Israeli prime minister and Nobel laureate is interested in nanotech, read my previous posts.
Discuss
Nanotech policy predictions: Part II
Here's another interview excerpt from my reporter's notebook, asking nano-prognosticators to predict what is likely to happen next in the nanotech/policy debates. The first excerpt can be seen here. This next conversation is with Rocky Rawstern, editor of Nanotechnology Now, and a Foresight Institute senior associate.
Rocky recently released a set of enlightening interviews with nanotechnology policy experts in his premium newsletter, including U.S. Sen. George Allen, R-Va., a co-sponsor of nanotech legislation; Neil Gordon, president of the Canadian NanoBusiness Alliance; Tim Harper, founder of CMP Cientifica; Ottilia Saxl of the U.K.'s Institute of Nanotechnology; Bo Varga, founding sponsor of nanoSIG and many others. It's definitely a worthwhile read.
Here's some of my chat with him:
Me: Do you think a system of self-regulation is going to emerge?
Rocky: Yes, and it will likely be based on existing frameworks, such as that for biotech. However, building a system that promotes openness and cooperation will need to be anchored by a much greater understanding (by our elected leaders) of the potential of nanoscale science and technology. Right now we have less than 10 such leaders here in the U.S. who have that understanding – the individuals sponsoring the current legislative efforts (S.189 and HR766).
Optimism? Unanimous optimism from all whom I interviewed, and from everyone I have spoken with in the past year. The only cloud that I have seen is in regards to military uses of nanotech, and the possible suppression of the technologies behind it. Something we need to be aware of, as usual.
Me: Will the recent media attention to nanotech increase the likelihood of some form of regulation in the U.S.?
Rocky: It could certainly play a role, just as it has (and is doing) with stem cell research here in the U.S. (while other countries forge ahead, and will likely develop new medical applications far in advance of us).
Me: Will it become as controversial as stem cell research or cloning?
Rocky: Possibly, and growing more likely as our media hype both the up- and down-sides to nanotech. Getting the nanoboosters together with the anti-techies and modern day Luddites may play a key part in keeping the debate sane. Recently I connected author Bill Atkinson and CRN Director of Research Chris Phoenix - the result of which has been an ongoing debate, which can be seen here. The upshot of this debate is that regardless of their starting mindset, getting the parties to the table, and having them engage in reasoned dialog, we may stem the tide of hype, which will ease the minds of the general public, which will keep our elected leaders from being painted into a corner when it comes time to create (or not create) regulations to govern nanotech.
Self-assembled News
Wednesday, September 10, 2003
Off Topic
My first daughter was born on Sept. 11, 1991. Absolutely no subsequent event will ever take the joy of this date away from me.
The goal is elevation
Arthur C. Clarke is going to lend his vision to an upcoming Santa Fe, N.M., event on the Space Elevator. Yes, the Space Elevator, a cable to the stars featured in some of Arthur C.'s stories. Nanotubes are going to give us the lift.
Sci-fi aside, there's real research going on here. Scientists at the University of Texas at Dallas have created fibers that are 20 times tougher than steel wire and got them to clump and fall in line. Also, the idea was given a "conceivable" stamp of approval in a recent German government report (PDF) on space nanotech, a NASA division is working on it and a company called Liftport is at least getting some publicity over the idea (T-minus 5420 days, 9 hours, 43 minutes, 49 seconds until the April 12, 2008 "Lift," according to the Bremerton, Wash., company.
Before you dismiss the notion as more nano silliness (a la "Jake 2.0"), remember that it was Arthur C. Clarke who, in 1945, wrote a preposterous story in which extraterrestrial relays enabled instant worldwide communications. Today, some of you are reading this Weblog using satellite-enabled Internet connections.
My luck, I'll be on the one with the kid who pushes the buttons for every floor.
Discuss
Why Joy doesn't need Sun
Nanomix, DuPont partner for nanotube b**b tubes
Nano titatium dioxide helps nature clean itself up ... somehow
Sticky bacteria under the microscope
Discuss
Nanotech Policy Predictions
I recently asked a few nano-contemplators what they thought was going to happen next on the nanotech policy front. I incorporated some of their ideas in my last Small Times column, but I spent so much space spouting my own opinions that some of their best ideas were left on the cutting-room floor. So, here are excerpts from a couple of them in response to a few of my questions. I'll post more of these later, too.
Kevin Ausman, executive director of the Center for Biological and Environmental Nanotechnology at Rice University in Houston
Me: Do you think a system of self-regulation (along the lines of the Foresight Guidelines) is going to emerge?
Kevin: Probably, though not because of any sense of need. The nanotech community isn't working on the kinds of things that the Foresight Guidelines is trying to protect against, so the community isn't particularly feeling threatened by any such self-regulation, and I have heard discussions of trying to adopt such a system to forestall public concerns.
On the more tangible points of nanomaterial health and safety, we are already seeing positive signs among the research and business communities as business plans, research directions, and funding decisions are all being modified to address these issues. The general consensus (although I am not an expert myself) seems to be that existing regulations pretty-much cover nanomaterials, if the interpretation of these regulations is appropriately handled, and all interested parties are trying to make sure that appropriate precidents are set in such applications of existing regulations.
Me: Is there any consensus yet in the nanotech research and business community? Optimism? Pessimism?
Kevin: Not really. Some (typically the large and medium-sized companies) view this as simply a standard storm to be weathered in the development of new products and technologies. Many smaller companies are worried that nanotechnology as a whole will get tarred by any individual negitive results, even if those results are obviously specific to a particular material rather than an larger class of materials.
Me: Will the recent media attention to what is unknown about nanotech increase the likelihood of some form of U.S. or European regulation being pushed through quickly?
Kevin: I would say that the liklihood in the U.S. is rather low, as environmental regulation here tends to be reactive rather than proactive. Europe has a different tradition in this regard.
Me: Do you have any predictions for what's going to happen in the next couple of months - with the nanotech bill coming up for a vote, the European Parliament paying more attention to nanotech, and advisory groups in the U.S. and U.K. set to meet?
Kevin: I think that the policy-makers, at least in the U.S., will continue to say things along the lines of, "It's hard to regulate an industry until there is an industry to regulate." I think that industry will continue its recent trend to support research to get ahead of the curve in determining health and environmental impacts, largely because its good business to do so. I think that academic researchers will begin to take advantage of the newly available funds for health and environmental impacts research, and that papers of varying quality will begin to get published, to much public fanfare.
I have no special insights to offer regarding views in the community or the likely output of the political process, but I think there is a simple, natural message that could influence both.
In brief: 1) Today's nanotechnology is a collection of incremental advances along multiple scientific and technological frontiers, hence existing laws and regulations should either already fit or be easily adapted.
(For example, Intel is already shipping nanotechnology in its standard chips, but this doesn't call for new legislation. Nanoparticles have existed since the dawn of the universe, and treating new nanoparticles as new materials from a toxicology standpoint is a case where the regulatory framework needs a modest extension.)
2) A revolutionary nanotechnology based on molecular machine systems is on the way, but its practical reality is many years away, hence new laws and regulations would be premature. (For example, what I discussed in Engines of Creation and Bill Joy wrote about in Wired will not be a practical reality until after a major systems engineering develops molecular machine systems that are themselves able to build complex products. To regulate such things today would be like regulating Moon bases after some experiments with rocketry but before launching the first satellite.)
The key is to clarify the distinction between long-term and short-term, and to point out that the real revolution is still distant. The best way to engage with calls for a regulatory response is to focus on areas such as nanoparticle toxicology, where existing rules fail to recognize what is different (for better or worse) about the new nanomaterials. The aim should be to extend a regulatory framework that already co-exists with thriving industries, such as fine chemicals.
Discuss
Tuesday, September 09, 2003
Shanghai Nano
NanoOpto sees 7 mill
What do you want from nanotubes? Quantum cryptography
Siemens chief: Old Europe needs an upgrade
Please don't let nano be misunderstood
Bacterial sugar buzz
Oh the Humanities!
Is the study of ethics the new nano gold rush?
When the National Science Foundation announced two grants late last month to ponder nanotech's impact on society, I turned to Chris MacDonald for some 5-cent philosophical help. Chris is a philosopher and ethicist at Saint Mary's University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, where I suppose a great deal of time spent trudging through the tundra would turn anyone's contemplations to the ultimate good or evil inherent in tiny particles that have the potential to self-assemble into a giant mess.
The cold has thankfully not kept Chris' brain in a state of cryonic stasis. He has an insightful collection of nanotech ethics articles on his ethicsweb site.
Not wanting to risk any unethical editing, I decided to post an unfiltered look at what Chris had to say about the topic in an e-mail exchange.
Chris: Seems odd that they’ve chosen to give out just 2 grants, grants that are HUGE by the standards of research in the humanities & social scientists. NSF may be under the misapprehension that ethics/social implications is like the genome project. Unfortunately, I doubt that 2 big, individual research projects will make as much progress as 20 smaller ones would have. Projects on ethics work by generating discussion, which you can’t do with just 2 grantees. Oh, well…I guess it’s better than not funding ANYTHING.
Me: Yes, we were discussing something similar at the office here. There's a perception that the business community - especially in chemicals – sees that there is government money to be had if only they redefine what they do as "nano." The more cynical among us are wondering whether philosophy and social sciences departments in colleges and universities across the country are now putting together their own panels to study the societal and ethical issues associated with nanotechnology in the hopes of government funding. Is that where the money is in your field?
Chris: Up til now, the money’s been in biotech/genetics. Philosophers & others in the social sciences have been handed multi-million dollar grants (and smaller ones, too, of course) to look at social, ethical, & legal implications of biotech. And yes, I suspect that now that nano is coming to the fore, at least some people in ethics etc. will shift their research in that direction in hopes of finding funding. But there’s also a less cynical angle: you go where the funding is, because that’s (often) where the action is; that’s where interesting, cutting-edge stuff is happening. Nano is an interesting & important topic, independent of whether it’s getting funded. But it doesn’t hurt to know that one’s newest interest happens to be attracting funding…"
Monday, September 08, 2003
Nanowax Poetic
If you're simultaneously a nanogeek and a sportsman, you can have fun with e-cards and spread nanonews to the skiier in your life at this site. Just hit the "fun" button. The e-card promotes Cerax Nanowax from Holmenkol Sport-Technologies, a joint venture between German chemicals concern LOBA and Nanogate Technologies.
The high-performance, long-lasting ski wax. is a composite nanocoating, made mostly of alcohol and sand. It's called a “self-organizing structure” because it contains both adhesive and anti-adhesive properties that organize themselves within the material. The adhesive particles naturally move toward the surface on which the coating must stick, while the anti-adhesive nanoparticles move toward the air – preventing dirt and grease from attaching themselves to the ultra-thin protective film.
Nanoparticles with binding qualities keep the outside and inside layers of film together, much like the white part of an Oreo keeps the cookie together. The end result creates a surface that is both hydrophobic and oleophobic – meaning that water and oil slide off, just like water slides off the feathers of a duck.
If you don't care about that, though, just have fun with the little ski guy in the flash movie.
Discuss
Quantum Dockers
I just love these targeted Google ads. My general nanotech discussion page hosts not only lively debate on the issues, but also will sell you everything from quantum dots to JCPenney Dockers. Another illustration of the range of industries (or at least key words) touched by nanotech.
Discuss
Sunday, September 07, 2003
Rebuttal from Greenpeace's scientific adviser
From: Doug Parr
Sent: Tue 9/2/2003 7:01 AM
To: Howard Lovy
Subject: Yr Small Times piece
Dear Howard Lovy,
I was a little surprised by your piece of 29 August because whilst the tone of your coverage of our report in your blog was sceptical it wasn't hostile (unlike some of the commentary in the Small Times article on the Greenpeace report! - still they said it). Indeed others have generally been quite positive about it - Glenn Reynolds, Tim Harper, Dick Smith at Alternative Futures (expressed privately but he's prepared to say so to others) and Chris Phoenix at CRN are the ones I know about. The reason New Scientist magazine was prepared to run a comment piece from me (don't know if you've seen that - let me know) was because they recognised that it was a balanced appraisal and survey of where things were at.
The specific issue around nanoparticles actually 'looks' very similar to other policy issues where we have some experience, and can act as models for the appropriate balance of innovation and safety. Specifically a new proposed law on chemicals places the onus much more on the manufacturer to provide evidence for (not proof because we know that's impossible) of absence of hazard. The importance of this is that it shifts where the onus lies for producing evidence lies in the face of scientific uncertainty. It explicitly recognises the precautionary principle - now a tenet of international law in a variety of fora.
Greenpeace has not called for a ban on nanoparticles but a moratorium until the hazards are characterised & understood. This is pretty much in line with proposed EU regulations and a host of international risk assessment processes with the proviso that hazard characterisation is properly achieved.
I'm not quite sure how this approach is "a masterful dumb show of alchemy and melodramatic cries", which seems to me to be exactly the sort of knee-jerk reaction you're railing against.
regards
Dr. Douglas Parr
Chief Scientific Adviser
Greenpeace UK
From: Howard Lovy
Sent: Sat 9/6/2003 7:11 PM
To: Doug Parr
Subject: RE: Yr Small Times piece
Hello, Doug,
I'm glad you regard my previous commentaries on my Weblog as skeptical, rather than hostile. It's a line I am very careful not to cross. Part of my role as a journalist is to be skeptical (they taught me in journalism school years and years ago: "If your mother says she loves you, check it out.") But hostility is never productive. I'm afraid that perhaps my "dumb show" comment was misconstrued as hostile. After talking to some friends and colleagues, I wish I could go back and reword the "dumb show" sentence. It's a relic of a phrase, used by Shakespeare I think, to describe a melodramatic pantomime. The point I was trying to get across was that exaggeration, or illustration of extreme worst-case scenarios, was being used to get the public's attention. Of course, we can disagree about that, and it's all part of honorable discourse, but I think some might have misinterpreted the sentence -- with the outdated phrase -- as name-calling on my part. I hope you did not take it that way, and if you did, I do apologize for my poor choice of phrases.
I've read the other articles you mention -- by Glenn Reynolds, Tim Harper and the folks at CRN. In fact, I asked Chris Phoenix and Mark Treder to write a condensed version for Small Times and it's up on smalltimes.com now. I do, however, still stand behind my statements on the key differences I see between nanotechnology and previous policy issues in which Greenpeace has been active. I also am a believer in use of the Precautionary Principle when it's appropriate, but still argue that it's not yet time to invoke it against the various industries that are delving into nanotechnology. I won't repeat my arguments here, but if you've been reading my blog (and I'm glad to read that you have!) you likely already know them.
I have also been careful -- unlike other members of the media -- not to state or imply that Greenpeace has gone the route of ETC Group in its call for a nanotechnology moratorium, and your organization should be commended for stopping short of taking that step. In fact, I probably need to make it clearer on my Weblog that I believe Greenpeace and ETC should be commended in general for doing more in the past few months to spark interest in nanotechnology among the general public and activist community than any previous group, publication or individual since Eric Drexler published "Engines of Creation." I'm certain that media coverage of the ongoing debate over the future of nanotechnology -- sparked by your report and others -- has inspired many to seek more information. That's why I look forward to covering this issue in depth in both my roles as Small Times news editor and independent commentator.
It's also long been my policy never to try to get the last word in. I'd welcome a rebuttal to my commentary and to run it in the next issue of Small Times magazine (where my column also appeared). It could be a letter to the editor or a longer column -- whichever you choose. If you don't have the time to do that, I could run your letter below in the next issue.
Thanks again for your note, and I look forward to speaking to you further about these important issues.
All the best,
Howard Lovy
Friday, September 05, 2003
Can't You Hear MNT Knocking
Again, Rick Smalley's "fat fingers" and "sticky fingers" are being given the finger. The father of fullerenes is being hammered a great deal these days by advocates of molecular nanotechnology, and Chris Phoenix and Mike Treder of the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology (with an influence growing well out of proportion to its two-man operation) make a convincing case for its arrival even earlier than Greenpeace predicted.
Smalley has been accused of creating a "straw Eric Drexler" to place in the stockade for public ridicule, force to sign a confession that the "Prey" scenario is only fiction, then sentence to death for disobeying the laws of physics. Phoenix and Treder are the latest in a line of Drexlerites who seek to tear apart the straw man, finger by finger. Smalley says that a hypothetical manipulator would be too fat and sticky to rearrange atoms. Smalley's critics say that a mechanochemical toolbox would do the job without any need for overweight or oily appendages.
The point of all this? Smalley says gray goo is silly science fiction. Drexler says it's a long, long way off, but is indeed physically possible. Both will have long since decomposed into atoms in the generations it will take to find out who wins the argument. So today's fight is really about two things: Addressing current fears and establishing historical legacies.
The CRN says a limited form of molecular nanotechnology is not only science fact, but it's a coming attraction that needs to be addressed by us today – not by our great-grandkids.
"Some hazards of LMNT may require cooperative international response; such problems, perhaps as little as a decade away, need attention today."
That's why I love my job. Wild Horses couldn't drag me away.
Thursday, September 04, 2003
Pumping Nano Iron
Here's further evidence of the corporate/government conspiracy to fool the public into believing that nanotechnology can help scare away the ghosts of irresponsibility's past. Nanoscale iron powder can clean Superfund sites and purify contaminated ground water? Don't believe it. File it away under this lie and that lie. We all know that nanoscale oxides are really part of a massive conspiracy to use women as human guinea pigs.
Discuss
Wednesday, September 03, 2003
Nanoclass warfare dispatch
This just in on Pat Mooney and the ETC Group. I wrote last week that the group plans to increase its anti-nanotech activism at various forums around the world, including a talk at a London event, "Small is Dangerous: The Threat of Nanotechnology." Mooney came through, delivering his usual spiel on how nanotech is the tool of the wealthy and will widen the "gulf between rich and poor."
"Every technology wave has a crest and a trough," Reuters quotes Mooney as saying. "The poor stay in the trough. It will happen again with the new wave ... which is being led by the world's largest corporations ... and we are not aware of it," he added.
He's right about the world's largest corporations discovering nanotechnology. But it's a recent phenomenon. So recent that Small Times is in the process of planning its 2004 editorial calendar with this trend in mind. So, if the public isn't aware of it now, it will be by the end of next year.
Despite what Mooney says, it's really small businesses that are on nanotech's leading edge right now. The sudden interest from multinational corporations will be both a curse and a blessing for these tiny companies -- and of course, the bigger the beast, the wider the disconnect between brain and action. Corporate irresponsibility is sure to result as layers upon layers of accountability and deniability are added. Mooney is correct in identifying that trend for what it is: A predictable pattern.
My unabashed cheerleading over nanotechnology's amazing potential aside, I'm not really a nanotech advocate or detractor. That would be akin to staking out a position "for" or "against" the eventual arrival of October. I am certain of its inevitability.
But I do possess a naive optimism in our ability to prepare for the changing season based on weather patterns of the past. This Reuters story presents a balance between the nano optimists and pessimists. As I've written before, now is the time to pay attention and make the right decisions to ensure nanotechnology develops in a responsible way.
Discuss
Now you know Jack
Small Times Correspondent Jack Mason has a well-written a nanotech story on Salon.com: "Nano Inc. Vs. Nano Think." Jack places the public disagreement between nanotech pioneers Eric Drexler and Richard Smalley in its larger context.
"There's a long way between Drexler's dreams and Smalley's reality," Jack writes. "But the very fact that there is some friction between scientists on the ground and visionaries such as Drexler is proof that nanotechnology has made impressive strides over the past decade and a half."
One of Small Times' star correspondents, Jack made up for his lack of total devotion to my publication by quoting his Small Times editor:
"Real progress in the field is obvious to anyone paying attention. Howard Lovy, news editor at 'Small Times Media,' a 2-year-old magazine and Web site covering the commercialization of nanotechnology, doesn't think Smalley and Drexler are really arguing with each other, or about the particular merits of molecular manufacturing, at all.
"He believes the two are really wrestling to shape public perception of, and government policy toward, nanotech. 'They're doing this in a public way, because they're aiming to set the tone for what nanotech will be,' says Lovy. He sees them jockeying for position in a coming battle, a fight that, like the one that continues to smolder around genetically modified food, will probably center on the potential environmental consequences of nanoparticles and materials."
"As for the feud fueling the competing visions, Small Times' Lovy says to remember that 'Drexler is a futurist. He's interested in people looking back 50 or 100 years from now and thinking, "Boy, was he right." ' Smalley, from what Lovy knows of him, is more of a businessman."
Jack again proves his innate ability to come up with the perfect catch phrase not only through the headline (which he wrote), but through his description of a man-on-the-moon national nanotech goal as a "Nanhattan Project."
Discuss
Tuesday, September 02, 2003
Why the Nano Generation doesn't need us
Over the Labor Day weekend, my 12-year-old daughter told me, "Dad, nanotech is cool and everything, but your blog is kind of boring." She's probably right, and shame on me for taking an essentially "cool" technology (and my daughter does NOT use that word lightly), and make it seem so painfully uncool. That will be a challenge facing the U.S. National Science Foundation as it begins to introduce nanotech into K-12 schools.
My daughter then told me about all the truly cool ways that nanotech is already being introduced to kids -- completely independent of any formal attempt by the government, school system or news media to dull it down into classroom instruction.
The now-canceled cartoon "Invader Zim", wildly popular with the young (and old) geek set, featured an episode called NanoZIM, in which "nanoships" are piloted inside a character's body. The image above is from that episode. What's especially funny about the plot synopsis I link to is that under "Cultural References," it says: "The whole episode is obviously a reference to the film Innerspace. Ahhh, kids. I suppose Madonna wrote "American Pie," too. "Innerspace," of course, was a horrible imitation of the original Fantastic Voyage, the Isaac Asimov classic and 1966 movie against which every nanotech breakthrough, real and fictional, is measured. More screen shots of NanoZIM can be found here.
It's not only Zim that has made nano cool. "Batman Beyond" featured an episode called The Perfect You, in which teens use nanotechnology to enhance their looks (are you reading this, L'Oreal?). "But when the nanotech becomes sentient, it takes over! Can Batman stop the problem before it gets out of hand?"
And the "Powerpuff Girls" (a little less cool these days, according to my 12-year-old cool-o-meter) featured an episode called Nano of the North, in which, "The Professor shrinks the girls down to microscopic level in order to fight millions of nanobots, creatures so tiny that they are able to come out of a mysterious dark cloud one to a raindrop. But then, when the nanobots join together to form one 'giant' monobot all of six inches high, the girls are too small to stop it." Cutest quote, according to a fan site: "A bunch down, a million to go!"
And an episode of "Jimmy Neutron" called Safety First acts out the ultimate geek fantasy: Using technology to get even with bullies. "A bully has been giving Jimmy a rough time recently, and he's had it. Rather than go to the proper authorities. Jimmy creates an electronic bodyguard piloted by Nanobots." But, in classic Frankenstein/Golem fashion, "the Nanobots get a little overzealous."
I've also seen references to nanotechnology in Dexter's Laboratory, but I can't find a specific episode. Maybe a reader can point me in the right direction.
So, with or without special nanotech curricula, our kids are already getting a way cooler nanotech educaton. But I hold no illusions that this post will suddenly make me seem cool in my daughter's eyes. As she's told me many times before, "Dad, you're way too old to ever be cool."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)